Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied Calvin Valentine Murray’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court held that the motion was untimely under the applicable 28-day deadline and identified no new facts, newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law.
Holdings
- A pro se filing arguing that the court's prior order was incorrect may be construed as a motion for reconsideration of that order.
- Reconsideration was not warranted because Murray filed outside the twenty-eight-day period and failed to identify new or different facts, newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in law.
Questions Presented
- Whether Murray's renewed § 2255 motion should be construed as a motion for reconsideration.
- Whether reconsideration was warranted under Southern District of California Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)
- Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Reeder v. Knapik, No. 07-CV-362-L(LSP), 2007 WL 2088402, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2007)(followed)
- Campion v. Old Republic Home Protection Co., Inc., No. 09-CV-748-JMA(NLS), 2011 WL 1935967, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 20, 2011)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…